The Creation of the Hydrogen Supply Chain Decision Database
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis work is promising study describing the creation of the hydrogen supply chain decision database. Unfortunately, authors did not say about how the mentioned networks are trained. What databases are used for training? What is the training algorithm? These comments do not detract from the high level of the presented scientific work.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article presents an interesting subject, the authors investigate a multi-objective evaluation of the hydrogen supply chain (HSC) based on operations research methods focusing on the pre-optimization work, and discussing the necessity of creating a regional hydrogen supply chain decision database. The paper needs to be rewritten in order to facilitate its understanding and fit the journal's template, especially the Introduction and Methodology sections.
Abstract: The abstract should follow the style of structured abstracts: 1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; 2) Methods: Describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied; 3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings; and 4) Conclusion: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations. The abstract should be an objective representation of the article: it must not contain results that are not presented and substantiated in the main text and should not exaggerate the main conclusions.
Introduction: The Introduction is confusing and mixes up several subjects. Please, in the Introduction frame the questions being addressed, describe the methods briefly, the novelty, the contribution of the article, and provide context for the findings being presented. The research questions are vague. Please present a clear research question and convince the reader that your work fills a gap in current knowledge.
The paper does not meet the template presented by the journal (see: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies/instructions#preparation). Especially the Methodology must be clarified.
Figure 1: poor design.
Figures (all): source?
Table 2 is the same available on page 8 of http://www.eihp.org/public/documents/RRR%20methodology_final_SEP2002.pdf . Please, modify it or get permission to
Conclusion: In the Conclusion topic, please, clearly answer the research questions framed in the Introduction. The research questions are not clear.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors did not make any substantial changes to the article. They only inserted a few paragraphs and the paper is still not according to the standards established in the journal's guidelines. For example, the paper has 8 sections. Please, rewrite the paper according to the guidelines available at: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies/instructions#preparation).
Comments were not solved
Not solved:
Introduction:
The authors just insert a new paragraph at the end of the section with the survey question. The state of the art, the novelty, and the contribution of the article are unclear. Please review and clearly describe the paragraphs in lines 33 through 99.
Table 2 is almost the same available on page 8 of http://www.eihp.org/public/documents/RRR%20methodology_final_SEP2002.pdf . Please, modify it, get permission to use, or clarify if the figure is free to use.
Figure 1: poor design. (what does” …” mean in the figure?).
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNo major issues
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors made the requested modifications.
